Agree
Matt


...I even have friends that use Canon! LOL!

Of course, if anyone wants to send me a D300 to test out for a few weeks then I'd be happy to oblige and give a detailed difference

My view is this - you can create great images with any modern camera (and many old ones too!). There are things that niggle me about the K20D, maybe some things that will niggle me on the K7D (should I ever have enough cash to get one :roll, and I'm pretty sure there are things on the D300 that would niggle me too. I can still create great images on the *ist-D without much hassle too!

Trouble is, it's too easy to get embroiled in the "my kit is better than yours" debate

It's a bit like the Mac-vs-PC debate. I like things about both of them, but overall I prefer Mac (now). Same with my cameras - I know my kit inside-out, it gets the job done, generally I enjoy using it, and it didn't cost the earth. Compared to anything else, it wins for me.

EDIT: "Upgrading" is certainly now a case of diminishing returns - it looks like you have to spend shed loads of money to get a noticeable increase in IQ (irrespective of brand).

I'm off now - have an evening taking images in VERY low lighting (again) - which I had no problem on Monday doing... so there


Matt

PMSL!
Matt

Well, I've just read most of RiceHigh's blog, and I'm off to get a D700.
Anyone want to buy a large kit of Pentax gear?




(Joking!)


The grass is always greener, and the sun always shines somewhere else.

Hmmm. If I were comparing noise of various cameras I would compare RAW, not the in-camera JPG
Different marques have different goals for incamera JPG, and Pentax has always taken the "softly softly" approach to sharpening and noise reduction so you can eek the most out in PP.

Differences in camera show up much more readily when you are working in RAW - and using the same converter for each camera. I have personally seen noticeable differences in quality between the K20D and the 20D & 30D in RAW. But, having said that, people chose equally from the sets of images. Obviously they were more concerned with composition and content than with technical nitty-gritty

Matt

There will always be noise - it's inherent in the electronic nature of the sensors. The quality of the noise will be different between cameras. Even larger sensors have noise - but larger doesn't necessarily mean better

Whether the K7 is "better" (ie more controllable) we'll have to wait and see.

Or, one could jump ship, sell everything Pentax and splash out on a D300 (why stop there - why not go for 1DsMk III?). Spending the money might give a warm fuzzy feeling - but each system has pros and cons. (I certainly feel as George does that a lot of the difference comes down to PP, rather than equipment.)

Matt

I thought in Aperture that pressing "M" would toggle between Master image and edits. You can also right click on the image and select "New Variant from Master".

I've only been using Aperture for a few hours... but maybe that's the way?

Perhaps some other Apple Aperture users can shed some insight on things?
Don....?

Matt

Interesting to hear the bits and pieces of issues (perhaps some of them are down to the relatively new processes of lead-free soldering. It's given us real headaches with manufacturing :roll
Heard today that there's now a 17" MacBook Pro with anti-glare coating
Might be interesting (think it may be £30 extra, but not available on smaller MBPs).
Matt

I have no other reference apart from this brand new iMac 24". Quality seems excellent to me (Did read that the switch to NVidia graphics cards was partly to increase reliability.)
...now just trying to work out how to get one or two more Mac machines into my sphere ...oh, and how to afford the Adobe upgrades required
Matt

Definitely And OS X is better still (IMHO+experience of course )
Matt